Publication - Research publication

Management Of The Scottish Inshore Fisheries; Assessing The Options For Change

Published: 7 Jan 2015
Part of:
Marine and fisheries
ISBN:
9781785440427

An analysis of the impacts from different options for the management of the Scottish Inshore fisheries. In particular, the report provides an appraisal of scenarios related to restrictions on the use of mobile fishing gears within one and three nautical m

375 page PDF

8.9 MB

375 page PDF

8.9 MB

Contents
Management Of The Scottish Inshore Fisheries; Assessing The Options For Change
16 GEAR CONFLICT

375 page PDF

8.9 MB

16 GEAR CONFLICT

16.1 Introduction

A potential benefit of 1 NM or 3 NM restrictions on mobile gear is the reduction in the incidence of gear conflict. The quantification of these benefits requires quite detailed information. Specifically, the analysis requires data for each IFG on gear conflict incidence, the gears involved and the costs involved. Ideally, for each IFG these data should be available for the 0-1, 1-3, 3-6 and 6-12 NM distance zones.

Whilst Marine Scotland ( MS) does record gear conflict incidents, it was believed that many incidents remain unreported. Moreover, the intelligence files retained by MS do not systematically record the financial costs of conflict, or other information this study requires. It became clear that primary data was needed. At the same time, beyond the immediate requirements of this study, MS was aware that generally there needed to be a better understanding of the extent and characteristics of gear conflict in Scottish inshore waters. A survey of fishery operators was therefore necessary. The primary function of the survey was to serve the requirement of this study, and questionnaire design reflects this. It was however accepted that where feasible the survey should also seek to generate outputs with a broader relevance for MS. The overall aim of the survey was to "to identify the location and frequency of gear conflict within specific zones in the IFGs, the gear types involved and the financial cost to those involved".

16.2 Survey Design

Not all operators would complete the survey and there was the possibility of response bias, since those experiencing conflict would be more likely to respond. It was therefore desirable to be able to contact non-respondents and make due adjustment for the bias. One difficulty is that, whilst MS has contact details for operators, these could not be made available to Grid Economics. The responses would therefore be anonymous and individual non-respondents would not be identifiable.

Scaling for non-response therefore required extra sample information which was free from response bias. The most obvious information was the intelligence files on gear conflict held by MS, plus the detailed local knowledge of the Fishery Officers ( FOs). In working with FOs on other aspects of this study it became apparent that local FOs have very detailed and nuanced knowledge of local inshore fishing activity. It was hoped that FOs would be able to estimate the total number and spatial distribution of all gear conflicts in their IFG area(s). The totals numbers estimated by FOs would comprise the recorded conflicts held on file plus the numbers of unreported events known to FOs.

Two survey instruments were therefore required. These are explained below.

16.2.1 Survey of Fishery Officers

Initially it was proposed that a nominated FO would complete a questionnaire covering an entire IFG. Unfortunately, the IFG boundaries and Fishery Office territories overlap and a few Fishery Office territories straddle the boundary between two IFG's. Also, given the size of some IFG areas, an individual FO might not have the required local knowledge covering the whole IFG area. It was therefore agreed with Marine Scotland Compliance that each Fishery Office would complete a questionnaire relating to their Fishery Office territory within the IFG(s). On receipt they would be aggregated to generate totals for each IFG.

Where a Fishery Office territory straddled the boundary between two IFG's it was necessary for that Office complete two questionnaires. In an effort to minimise this requirement the following configuration applied:

Fraserburgh Office reported only on its territory within Moray and the North Coast IFG area, even although Fraserburgh Bay is in the East IFG. Oban reported only on its territory within the South West area. Mallaig reported only its territory within the North West area.

Thus, only Kinlochbervie was required to complete two questionnaires, one for its territory in the North West and one for its territory in Moray Firth and North Coast IFG. The table below summarises the Fishery Office aggregations.

Table 16.2.1 IFGs and Fishery Office Territories

IFG FISHERY OFFICES
East Coast Anstruther Eyemouth Aberdeen Peterhead
Moray Firth and North Coast Fraserburgh Buckie Scrabster Kinlochbervie (Cape Wrath to Tongue)
North West Kinlochbervie (Cape Wrath to Scourie) Lochinver Ullapool Portree Mallaig
South West Oban Campeltown Ayr
Outer Hebrides Stornoway
Orkney Kirkwall
Shetland Lerwick

The questionnaire was piloted in hard copy form with FOs at meetings in Peterhead, Inverness and Oban which were arranged to review this study's baseline estimates of commercial fishing in each IFG. The final version was emailed and all Fishery Offices provided a response.

Whist the primary purpose was to generate on a bias free estimate of the total number of gear conflicts, the questionnaire examined the percentage reported, trends in gear conflict, location and the gear types in conflict. These additional data would provide a check on key elements of the operator survey.

16.2.2 The On-Line Survey of Fishery Operators

Given resource and other constraints, an on-line questionnaire was preferred to other survey instruments, such as face to face interviews, postal or telephone questionnaires.

The survey was piloted among 40 representative inshore fishery operators. The pilot revealed that the questionnaire was heavily burdened in seeking to generate data disaggregated down to individual IFGs and specific zones within each IFG (01nm, 1-3nm, 3-6 NM and 6-12nm). The questionnaire was simplified and made available on-line between 2nd October and 13th December 2013.

A number of channels were used to alert and invite fishery businesses to participate. Using their email lists, MS invited every operators to access the link. The link was trailed in Fishing News and posted on various fishermen's federation and association websites. It was also highlighted on the MS website where operators are expected to check weekly with licence variations and other MS announcements.

16.2.2.1 Owner Questionnaire Structure

As respondents progressed through the questionnaire they were presented with questions addressing the following:

  • Their vessel and gear type in 2012.
  • Their fishing in 2012.
  • Their perception of trends in the incidence of gear conflicts.
  • Their reporting of gear conflicts to MS.
  • The financial costs to them.
  • Location and number of gear conflicts.
  • Gear types in conflict.
  • Scenarios giving rise to conflict.

Finally operators were invited to provide additional comments which would be presented verbatim to MS, but which would only be included in publicly available documents with the agreement of the individual respondent.

16.2.2.2 Owner Questionnaire Response Rate

A total of 341 started the survey resulting in 294 useable responses. Some fished more than one IFG area hence we have 323 observations across the IFG areas. Those fishing more than one IFG areas were allocated to the IFG in which they undertook most of their fishing. The estimated vessel populations for each IFG were compiled from MS data on vessels home ports or creeks.

Table 16.2.2 Respondents by IFG

IFG Nos
South West 57
North West 96
Outer Hebrides 38
MF& NC 42
Orkney 11
East Coast 51
Shetland 7
Non IFG 21
Total 323

Table 16.2.3 Estimated Vessel Pop. by Size by IFG

IFG <10m 10-15m >15m Total
South West 214 73 78 365
North West 157 44 33 234
Outer Hebrides 149 21 19 189
MF& NC 148 19 45 212
Orkney 94 25 8 127
East Coast 298 31 129 458
Shetland 123 10 35 168
Total 1183 223 347 1753

Table 16.2.4 Estimated Response Rate by IFG

IFG <10m 10-15m >15m Total
South West 15.0% 19.2% 7.7% 14.2%
North West 36.9% 31.8% 15.2% 32.9%
Outer Hebrides 4.7% 28.6% 68.4% 13.8%
MF& NC 18.9% 10.5% 11.1% 16.0%
Orkney 5.3% 20.0% 12.5% 8.7%
East Coast 12.8% 12.9% 1.6% 9.6%
Shetland 2.4% 0.0% 2.9% 2.4%
Total 14.5% 20.2% 9.2% 14.1%

Given the exposure provided for the survey, the response rate was a bit disappointing. In addition, many respondents simply skipped some key questions. The requirement to generate data on individual zones within individual IFG may have placed a strain on the response rate. As a result, some of cross tabulations produce cells with no observations and estimates which are based on small numbers. In addition, a low response probably increases the potentially distorting effects of response bias.

The key findings from both questionnaires are presented under the following headings:

  • Trends
  • Relative Frequency Across IFG's
  • Location of Conflict Within Each IFG
  • Reporting of Incidents
  • Gears in Conflict
  • Beliefs About Causation
  • Costs to Operators
  • Respondents' Comments

16.3 Trends

Both operators and FOs were asked to compare the number of incidents in 2012 with the number in previous years and with their expectations for the 2013 which was nearly over when the questionnaires were launched.

Table 16.3.Tends in Gear Conflict

Operators Fishery Officers
2012 Compared with Previous Years 2013 Compared with 2012 2012 Compared with Previous Years 2013 Compared with 2012
Nos. Percent Nos. Percent Nos. Percent Nos. Percent
Substantially more 33 19% 34 23% 0 0% 3 17%
Slightly more 50 29% 41 27% 3 18% 3 17%
About the same 64 37% 63 42% 7 41% 9 50%
Slightly less 13 8% 5 3% 3 18% 3 17%
Substantially less 7 4% 2 1% 2 12% 0 0%
Don't Know 4 2% 6 4% 2 12% 0 0%
Total 171 100% 151 100% 17 100% 18 100%

A total of 48% of operators believed that there were either substantially more or slightly more incidents in 2012 than in previous years. Only 12% believed that there were substantially less or slightly less than in previous years. A similar pattern emerges in the comparison between 2012 and 2013. This picture of gear conflict incidents becoming more frequent was not entirely reflected in responses from FOs. This differential may be due to the response bias or FOs not being fully aware of the full extent of gear conflict.

16.4 Relative Frequency Across IFG's

Information on gear conflicts was obtained from operators and from FO's. Fishery businesses recorded gear conflicts on 3,948 days. Most of these (67%) occurred in the South West and North West IFGs. The FO's responses present a broadly similar picture but with the conflict in the Outer Hebrides being more prominent. In terms of the number of conflicts in each as a proportion of all IFG fishing days, the South West and North West would appear to have a relatively bigger gear conflict problems. Gear conflict would not appear to be an issue in Orkney and Shetland.

Table 16.4 Relative Frequency of Gear Conflicts

IFG Area Survey of Fishery Operators Fishery Officers
Conflict Days % of Fishing Days in IFG % of all FO Recorded and Unrecorded Scottish Conflicts
South West 1121 ( 28%) 12.5% 18%
North West 1536 ( 39%) 11.8% 25%
Outer Hebrides 295 ( 7%) 6.7% 38%
MF& NC 333 ( 8%) 5.6% 9%
Orkney 42 ( 1%) 2.5% 2%
East Coast 560 ( 14%) 7.3% 8%
Shetland 60 ( 2%) 8.2% 0%
Total 3948 (100%) 9.3% 100%

16.5 Location of Conflict Within Each IFG

For the purposes of this study, it was important to identify where the gear conflicts were occurring. The estimates in each row in the table below are cumulative. Of the total of 3,938 conflict days, 35% are taking place within 1 NM of the shore and 77% within 3nm. In the South West 61% take place within the 1 NM zone. In the South West and the North West, 96% and 84% respectively take place within 3nm. This is proportionately more than in the other IFG's. Given the coastal topography and island configuration, this possibly reflects the distribution of fishing effort rather than particular hot spots

Table 16.5.1 Location of Conflicts within IFG Areas

IFG <1 NM <3 NM <6 NM <12 NM >12 NM
SOUTH WEST Days 686 1070 1072 1121 1121
% 61.1% 95.5% 95.2% 99.9% 100.0%
NORTH WEST Days 504 1286 1503 1536 1536
% 32.8% 83.7% 97.9% 100.0% 100.0%
OUTER HEBRIDES Days 34 93 232 290 295
% 11.6% 31.4% 78.6% 98.3% 100.0%
MORAY FIRTH and NORTH COAST Days 0 196 296 315 333
% 0.0% 58.8% 88.9% 94.6% 100.0%
ORKNEY Days 32 38 40 42 42
% 76.2% 90.5% 95.2% 100.0% 100.0%
EAST COAST Days 124 322 467 560 560
% 22.2% 57.4% 83.3% 100.0% 100.0%
SHETLAND Days 0 40 40 44 60
% 0.0% 66.7% 66.7% 73.3% 100.0%
Total Days 1380 3044 3650 3908 3948
% 35.0% 77.1% 92.5% 99.0% 100.0%

The Table below which presents the distribution of fishing effort broadly confirms that the distribution of conflicts broadly reflects the intensity of fishing effort within each IFG.

Table 16.5.2 Location of Fishing Effort within IFG Areas

IFG <1 NM <3 NM <6 NM <12 NM >12 NM
SOUTH WEST Days 3958 6995 8194 8893 8957
% 44.2% 78.1% 91.5% 99.3% 100.0%
NORTH WEST Days 3016 9577 11997 12877 13064
% 23.1% 73.3% 91.8% 98.6% 100.0%
OUTER HEBRIDES Days 579 1632 3125 4026 4427
% 13.1% 36.9% 70.6% 90.9% 100.0%
MORAY FIRTH and NORTYH COAST Days 2368 3817 5539 5720 5992
% 39.5% 63.7% 92.4% 95.5% 100.0%
ORKNEY Days 1007 1414 1514 1567 1690
% 59.6% 83.6% 89.6% 92.7% 100.0%
EAST COAST Days 1771 3965 6097 7313 7724
% 22.9% 51.3% 78.9% 94.7% 100.0%
SHETLAND Days 325 509 585 634 736
% 44.1% 69.1% 79.4% 86.2% 100.0%
Total Days 13024 27908 37050 41031 42590
% 30.6% 65.5% 87.0% 96.3% 100.0%

16.6 Reporting of Incidents

Along with the questionnaire FOs were forwarded a copy of the Marine Compliance record of gear conflict incidents. They were invited to identify the number of known incidents in their IFG area resulting in an incident being recorded. There was significant variation in rates of recording and, given the information from fishery operators a surprisingly low number of recorded incidents. Once again it is difficult to determine whether response bias or some gaps in the local knowledge of FOs. No criticism of FOs is implied by this speculation.

Table 16.6.1 % of Incidents Recorded by Marine Compliance (Fishery Officers)

South West North West Outer Hebrides MF& NC Orkney East Coast Shetland Total
Known incidents 34 53 71 20 4 16 0 198
Recorded by FO 24 43 7 6 3 9 0 92
%Recorded 71% 81% 10% 30% 75% 56% 0 46%

From the table above, it would appear that 46% of incidents known to FOs resulted in a recorded incident. This contrasts with the percentage of incidents reported by operators.

Table 16.6.2 % of Incidents Reported by Fishery Operators

% of Incidents Reported by Fishery Operators
None 0 to <20% 20% to <50% 50% to <100% 100% Respondents
Number 97 18 8 8 20 151
Percent 64.2% 11.9% 5.3% 5.3% 13.2% 100.0%

In the table above, 64% of operators did not report any incidents. From the responses we calculate that only 1 in 5 incidents were recorded. This would imply that, assuming perfect local knowledge, FOs would know of 460 incidents from just our respondents. We need to make allowances that a single gear conflict generates an incident for both of those involved. This would imply 230 incidents from the respondent alone. FOs were only aware of 198 incidents. Given a 14% response rate, and assuming no response bias, this suggests that FO's would collectively be aware of 1,400 incidents. It is difficult to explain this discrepancy through response bias or operators over-stating the gear conflict issue. This is problematic, since our proposed extra sample scaling factor is larger than the sample estimate itself.

16.7 Gears in Conflict

Respondents were asked to identify the gear types they were having conflict with. They were asked to identify the "other gear" type within 0-1nm, 1-3nm, 3-6nm, 6-12 NM and beyond 12nm. The results are presented below.

Table 16.7.1 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type within 1nm

Nephrop Trawls Other Trawls Dredges Nephrop pots/creels Other shellfish pots/creels Lines Hand diving Total
Demersal trawl 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2
Nephrop pots/creels 29 2 11 13 4 0 0 59
Nephrop trawl 1 0 0 13 3 0 0 17
Other shell fish pots/creels 6 7 13 1 22 1 1 51
Other shellfish hand diving 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Pelagic and other lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic trawl 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 4
Scallop dredge 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Scallop hand diving 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 7
Total 39 9 27 31 32 3 2 143

From the above table, we can identify that within 1 NM of the shore the gear of 29 nephrop creelers came into physical contact with Nephrops trawls. The gears of 11 nephrop creelers were in contact with dredges and 13 with other nephrop creelers.

Table 16.7.2 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type between 1 and 3nm

Nephrop Trawls Other Trawls Dredges Nephrop pots/creels Other shellfish pots/creels Lines Hand diving Total
Demersal trawl 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Nephrop pots/creels 43 2 11 15 6 0 0 77
Nephrop trawl 0 0 0 12 4 0 0 16
Other shell fish pots/creels 5 10 16 1 8 1 1 42
Other shellfish hand diving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic and other lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic trawl 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
Scallop dredge 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Scallop hand diving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 49 12 28 30 20 1 1 141

Table 16.7.3 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type between 3 and 6nm

Nephrop Trawls Other Trawls Dredges Nephrop pots/creels Other shellfish pots/creels Lines Hand diving Total
Demersal trawl 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Nephrop pots/creels 23 1 4 8 1 0 0 37
Nephrop trawl 1 0 1 12 3 0 0 17
Other shell fish pots/creels 5 13 20 0 7 1 1 47
Other shellfish hand diving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic and other lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic trawl 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 3
Scallop dredge 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
Scallop hand diving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 30 14 26 22 14 1 1 108

Table 16.7.4 Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type between 6 and 12nm

Nephrop Trawls Other Trawls Dredges Nephrop pots/creels Other shellfish pots/creels Lines Hand diving Total
Demersal trawl 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Nephrop pots/creels 7 0 1 2 1 0 0 11
Nephrop trawl 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 6
Other shell fish pots/creels 1 8 11 1 3 1 1 26
Other shellfish hand diving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic and other lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic trawl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Scallop dredge 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2
Scallop hand diving 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 8 12 8 7 2 1 46

The above tables provided a detailed picture of where particular gear conflicts are occurring. The table below summaries the gear types in conflict.

Table 16.7.5 All Incidents by Gear Type on Gear Type

Nephrop Trawls Other Trawls Dredges Nephrop pots/creels Other shellfish pots/creels Lines Hand diving Total
Demersal trawl 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 5
Nephrop pots/creels 102 5 27 38 12 0 0 184
Nephrop trawl 2 0 1 42 11 0 0 56
Other shell fish pots/creels 17 38 60 3 40 4 4 166
Other shellfish hand diving 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
Pelagic and other lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pelagic trawl 3 0 3 3 1 0 0 10
Scallop dredge 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8
Scallop hand diving 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 7
Total 126 43 93 91 73 7 5 438

The results suggest the in addition to the contact between mobile and static gear, there is territorial conflict between static gear types. From the above table we can identify the following features:

  • Nephrop creelers experience most gear conflicts with nephrop trawlers (55%), other nephrop creelers (25%) and dredges (15%) in that order.
  • 75% of nephrop trawlers' gear conflicts are with nephrop creelers and 20% with other shellfish pots and creels.
  • Other shellfish pots and creels seem to interact with a broader range of gear types. 36% of their conflicts are with dredges, 24% with their fellow shellfish potters and creelers and 23% with other trawlers. Anecdotal evidence and written testimony suggest that this might be trawlers targeting squid close to the shore.
  • There is very little conflict between mobile gear types

The table identifies the 9 most common types of gear conflicts (see first column) and identifies their distribution from the shore.

Table 16.7.2.6 Location of the most common conflicts

Type of Conflict (9 most Common) No. of Respondents Experiencing
0-1 NM 1-3 NM 3-6 NM 6-12m
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Nephrop Trawls 42 55 35 12
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Dredges 11 11 4 1
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Nephrop Pots/Creels 13 15 8 2
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels 5 7 1 2
Nephrop Pots/Creels + Other Trawls 5 4 3 0
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Nephrop Trawls 9 9 8 2
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Dredges 14 18 23 13
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Other Trawls 8 10 13 8
Other Shellfish Pots/ Creels + Other Shellfish 22 8 7 3
Pots/ Creels

For the most common conflicts the area inside 3 NM is very significant. The exception would appear to be Other Shellfish Pots/Creels which have almost as many conflicts with dredges and trawls in the 3 to 12 NM zone as they do in the 0-3 NM zone, though their encounters with their fellow Other Shellfish Pots/Creels are mostly in the 0-1 NM zone.

16.8 Beliefs About Causation

In an effort to tease out the circumstances giving rise to gear conflicts operators were presented with the question below. In the right hand column, we have provided a short hand form of words to summarise.

"With reference to 2012, please estimate the PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GEAR CONFLICTS described by each of the following scenarios"

Scenario
% where OTHERS fished their gear where they COULD NOT HAVE reasonably expected YOUR gear already to be there. Other Initiated and Probable Accident
% where OTHERS fished their gear where they MIGHT HAVE reasonably expected YOUR gear already to be there. Other Initiated and Uncertain Intent.
% where OTHERS fished their gear where they ALMOST CERTAINLY could have expected YOUR gear already to be there. Other Initiated and Probably Deliberate
% where YOU deployed your gear in locations where you COULD NOT HAVE reasonably expected OTHER gear already to be there. Respondent Initiated and Probable Accident
% where YOU deployed your gear in locations where you MIGHT HAVE reasonably expected OTHER gear already to be there. Respondent Initiated and Uncertain Intent.
% where YOU deployed your gear where you ALMOST CERTAINLY could have expected OTHER gear already to be there. Respondent Initiated and Probably Deliberate
% of conflicts where there was a different or unknown scenario

Table 16.8 Gear Conflict Scenarios

Gear My Gear There First Their Gear There First
Accident Uncertain Deliberate Them Accident Uncertain Deliberate Me Other N
Demersal trawl 0.0 3.3 50.0 53.3 20.0 23.3 1.7 45.0 1.7 3
Nephrop pots/creels 1.1 22.0 67.6 90.7 1.4 1.9 3.0 6.3 3.0 61
Nephrop trawl 3.9 2.2 27.2 33.3 39.0 17.5 1.9 58.4 8.2 18
Other shell fish pots/creels 6.9 22.4 62.8 92.0 2.7 3.8 0.7 7.3 0.6 54
Other shellfish hand diving 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 2
Pelagic trawl 5.0 20.0 20.0 45.0 20.0 10.0 10.0 40.0 15.0 1
Scallop dredge 0.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 15.0 60.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 2
Scallop hand diving 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 2
Total 3.6 18.7 58.2 80.5 7.3 6.2 1.9 15.4 4.1 143

By and large, static operators are stating there is quite widespread deliberate intent on the part of others. Over 67% of all nephrop creelers and 63% of all those using other creels thought conflict was almost certainly a deliberate act by another. A majority of nephrop trawlers stated the conflict was accidental or not entirely. On this evidence there would seem to be different declared understandings about how conflicts arise. Given the financial cost, the inconvenience and stress associated with gear conflict, it is not surprising that personal conflicts arise. In the absence of something changing these conflict are likely continue to be a feature of inshore fishing in some parts of Scotland.

16.9 Costs to Operators

Respondents were asked the "financial cost to your business of all gear conflicts. Please include lost profit whilst being unable to use damaged gear, repair and replacement costs, legal bills etc"

The total costs by for each IFG disaggregated by gear type is given in the Table below

Table 16.9.1 Total Gear Conflict Costs by Gear Type by IFG

Home Gear Mean N Std. Deviation Sum
South West Demersal trawl £2,600 2 3,394 £5,200
Nephrop pots/creels £8,494 17 12,367 £144,400
Nephrop trawl £6,967 6 7,431 £41,800
Other shell fish pots/creels £1,983 10 1,759 £19,825
Pelagic trawl £15,000 1 £15,000
Scallop dredge £9,000 1 £9,000
Total £6,357 37 9,345 £235,225
North West Demersal trawl £0 1 £0
Nephrop pots/creels £4,340 42 6,547 £182,300
Nephrop trawl £4,700 9 4,232 £42,301
Other shell fish pots/creels £5,940 5 8,350 £29,699
Other shellfish hand diving £0 1 £0
Scallop dredge £0 1 £0
Scallop hand diving £8,000 2 0 £16,000
Total £4,431 61 6,160 £270,300
Outer Hebrides Nephrop pots/creels £10,850 10 15,649 £108,500
Nephrop trawl £5,000 6 3,688 £30,000
Other shell fish pots/creels £26,000 3 30,790 £78,000
Total £11,395 19 16,760 £216,500
Moray Firth & North Coast Nephrop pots/creels £2,000 1 £2,000
Nephrop trawl £5,000 1 £5,000
Other shell fish pots/creels £4,066 16 6,184 £65,050
Scallop dredge £0 1 £0
Total £3,792 19 5,744 £72,050
Orkney Nephrop pots/creels £3,750 2 1,768 £7,500
Other shell fish pots/creels £1,100 2 1,273 £2,200
Other shellfish hand diving £0 1 £0
Total £1,940 5 2,029 £9,700
East Coast Demersal trawl £1 1 £1
Nephrop trawl £3,000 1 £3,000
Other shell fish pots/creels £13,478 27 26,134 £363,900
Scallop dredge £0 1 £0
Total £12,230 30 25,041 £366,901
Shetland Demersal trawl £20,000 1 £20,000
Other shell fish pots/creels £8,000 1 £8,000
Total £14,000 2 8,485 £28,000
Total Demersal trawl £5,040 5 8,632 £25,201
Nephrop pots/creels £6,176 72 9,853 £444,700
Nephrop trawl £5,309 23 4,830 £122,101
Other shell fish pots/creels £8,854 64 19,106 £566,674
Other shellfish hand diving £0 2 0 £0
Pelagic trawl £15,000 1 £15,000
Scallop dredge £2,250 4 4,500 £9,000
Scallop hand diving £8,000 2 0 £16,000
Total £6,929 173 13,505 £1,198,676

The table below provides the mean gear conflict costs by gear type by IFG.

Table 16.9.2 The Mean Annual Cost of Conflict by Gear Type by IFG

South West North West Outer Hebrides MF& NC Orkney East Coast Shetland Overall Mean N
Demersal trawl £2,600 £0 £0 £0 £0 £1 £20,000 £5,040 5
Nephrop pots/creels £8,494 £4,340 £10,850 £2,000 £3,750 £0 £0 £6,176 72
Nephrop trawl £6,967 £4,700 £5,000 £5,000 £0 £3,000 £0 £5,309 23
Other shell fish pots/creels £1,983 £5,940 £26,000 £4,066 £1,100 £13,478 £8,000 £8,854 64
Other shellfish hand diving £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 2
Pelagic trawl £15,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £15,000 1
Scallop dredge £9,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £2,250 4
Scallop hand diving £0 £8,000 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £8,000 2
Overall Mean £6,357 £4,431 £11,395 £3,792 £1,940 £12,230 £14,000 £6,929

From the table above, the overall annual average costs within each IFG area was £6,929. The column and row totals are weighted averages. Thus operators in the MF& NC have the lowest annual costs. For many cells in the above table there are no observations and for others there is a small number problem. Given this and the variance, the mean cost for all conflicts is the most reliable measure of cost likely to be avoided by the introduction of the 0-1 1 NM or 3 nmNM restrictions.

16.9.1 Benefits from Restricting Mobile Gear

Most conflicts arise between mobile and fixed gear and we assume that a ban on mobile gear within 1 or 3 miles of the coast would remove such conflicts. In the absence of other measures conflict between static gears would continue. The table below presents an estimate of the % of the mobile / static conflicts that would be avoided in each IFG area.

Table 16.9.3 Conflicts Avoided

IFG <1nm <3nm
Fixed Mobile Avoided Fixed Mobile Avoided
SOUTH WEST Fixed 11 11 65.6% 18 23 68.4%
Mobile 10 0 16 0
NORTH WEST Fixed 8 18 75.0% 17 43 77.0%
Mobile 6 0 14 0
OUTER HEBRIDES Fixed 3 2 42.9% 6 5 46.7%
Mobile 1 1 2 2
MF& NC Fixed 6 6 50.0% 8 13 61.9%
Mobile 0 0 0 0
ORKNEY Fixed 1 1 50.0% 2 2 50.0%
Mobile 0 0 0 0
EAST COAST Fixed 8 2 20.0% 12 7 50.0%
Mobile 0 0 8 3
SHETLAND Fixed 1 0 0.0% 1 1 50.0%
Mobile 0 0 0 0
Total Fixed 38 40 59.4% 64 94 65.8%
Mobile 17 1 33 2

Having estimated the percentage of conflicts and therefore costs saved, it is necessary to know the number of conflicts (and costs) occurring within 1 NM and 3 NM. Table 16.5.1 provides an estimate of the number and % of conflict days for each IFG by distance zones. This distribution can be used to allocate the total IFG conflict costs. This is presented in the table below along with the estimated savings

Table 16.9.4 Estimated Gear Conflict Savings

IFG Total Cost 0-1 NM 0-3 NM
<1nm %Avoided Savings <3nm %Avoided Savings
SOUTH WEST £235,225 £143,722 65.60% £94,282 £224,640 68.40% £153,654
NORTH WEST £270,300 £88,658 75.00% £66,494 £226,241 77.00% £174,206
OUTER HEBRIDES £216,500 £25,114 42.90% £10,774 £67,981 46.70% £31,747
MF& NC £72,050 £42,365 50.00% £21,183 £64,052 61.90% £39,648
ORKNEY £9,700 £7,391 50.00% £3,696 £8,779 50.00% £4,390
EAST COAST £366,901 £81,452 20.00% £16,290 £210,601 50.00% £105,301
SHETLAND £28,000 £0 0.00% £0 £18,676 50.00% £9,338
Total £1,198,676 £388,702 54.73% £212,718 £820,970 63.13% £518,283

Scaling these estimates by the response rates of Table 16.2.4 produces the following total costs and savings within 1 NM and within 3 NM that would arise for, restricting mobile gear.

Table 16.9.5 Scaled Annual Gear Conflict Savings

IFG Total Cost < 1 NM Savings <3 NM Savings
SOUTH WEST £1,656,514 £663,958 £1,082,070
NORTH WEST £821,581 £202,109 £529,502
OUTER HEBRIDES £1,568,841 £78,072 £230,051
MF& NC £450,313 £132,394 £247,800
ORKNEY £111,494 £42,483 £50,460
EAST COAST £3,821,885 £169,688 £1,096,885
SHETLAND £1,166,667 £0 £389,083
Total £9,597,294 £1,288,704 £3,625,851

There is undoubtedly a response bias and the estimates in Table 16.9.5 should not be used. Because of the low response rate, the un-scaled estimates of Table 16.9.4 have an equally dubious provenance. The final table below 16.9.6 is based on a mid-point estimate. This is not ideal but is preferable to using the scaled or un-scaled estimates, or indeed not producing any estimate.

Table 16.9.6 Final Estimates Annual Gear Conflict Savings

IFG < 1 NM Savings <3 NM Savings
SOUTH WEST £379,120 £617,862
NORTH WEST £134,302 £351,854
OUTER HEBRIDES £44,423 £130,899
MF& NC £76,789 £143,724
ORKNEY £23,090 £27,425
EAST COAST £92,989 £601,093
SHETLAND £0 £199,211
Total £750,712 £2,072,068

Contact